Digital forms and ubiquitous networks are greatly increasing
opportunities to circulate authored symbolic works. Digitization projects
are creating huge online libraries of digitized books that persons around the
world can access at zero incremental cost. Storage prices are dropping so
rapidly that one small device will soon be able to store all the music that
most persons listen to throughout their lives. Video sharing sites are
collecting and distributing large amounts of video across the Internet.
Many persons can now easily create a huge library of digital works. How
persons respond to vastly expanding access to works will significantly shape
the communications industry.

To better understand the circulation of works, consider U.S.
public-library users’ book borrowing behavior since the mid-nineteenth
century. Measured relative to the unskilled wage, the dime novels that
Irwin Beadle began selling in 1860 were almost five times more expensive than
the twenty-five cent paperbacks being sold in 1950.[2] A
lower real purchase price for books increased the incentive to purchase rather
than borrow. Average time spent reading, according to the best available
estimates, fell 50% from 1925 to 1995.[3] Less time spent
reading implies less demand for borrowing books.

Other factors probably pushed toward more borrowing.
The number of books in print, and the number of books in libraries, increased
immensely from the mid-nineteenth century to the early twenty-first century.[4]
Perhaps such a change encouraged persons to read a larger number of books less
thoroughly, and hence favored borrowing books relative to purchasing
books. Library users’ travel costs, in time and money, probably fell with
improvements in transportation technology since the mid-nineteenth
century. Lower travel costs reduce the total cost of borrowing books from
a library.[5]

Library book circulation per user has no strong, long-run
trend. From 1856 to 1978, library users borrowed from U.S. public
libraries about 15 books per user per year. From 1978 to 2004, book circulation
per user declined approximately 50%. The growth of audiovisuals
circulation, estimated at 25% of total circulation in 2004, accounts for about
half of this decline. These figures depend on estimates and disparate
samples of libraries with varying circulation and user accounting
methods. Nonetheless, these figures are of sufficient quality to suggest
that historically established institutions significantly stabilize borrowing
behavior.

I. Studies of Library Book Circulation

Statistics on library use are worth studying. Much
data exists. Large individual libraries often issued annual reports that
included statistical data on use of the library. In addition, since 1836
interested individuals, professional organizations, and government bodies have
produced about 250 separate compilations of library statistics covering
different dates and libraries. A leading library historian has observed:

Despite their value, little
critical attention has been given by library historians to the purposes, methods,
quality, and uses of the data.[6]

The data is not simple to analyze. One of the few
scholars who has analyzed the data observed:

The writer did not find easy
going in collecting and assembling this material. Gaps in reporting by
individual libraries, lack of uniform standards in reporting, obvious misprints
in tables, sporadic appearance of data, and frequent changes in the type of
data reported are a few of the obstacles encountered.[7]

On the other hand, data encompassing large investments in
communication across long periods of time are rare. Books require
significant investments in writing and reading. Circulation of public library
books is an important indicator of communication. Aggregate data on
library use potentially offers important, long-run insights on communication.[8]

Circulation per user per year is a meaningful, feasible
measure of library use across long periods. In this paper, circulation
per user means borrowing for use outside the library per person who has
affirmatively established the administrative right to borrow books from the
library. Circulation per user indicates a significant type of individual
behavior both in establishing an administrative relationship to a library and
in using library materials. Total population, persons in libraries’ legal
serving areas, and the number of persons who use libraries have risen over
time. Circulation per user is conceptually distinct from these
trends. Circulation per user is also conceptually distinct from changes
in the distribution of library sizes and the scope and composition of the
library sample.[9] Because circulation per user is
a measure of average user behavior, it suggests user-weighted aggregation of
library statistics. Sums of users and circulation across libraries
implicitly is such an aggregation. Most importantly, sufficient data
exist to estimate reasonably circulation per user since 1856.[10]

Kaiser’s study of large public libraries from 1908 to 1946
found that circulation per user did not change greatly.[11]
This study collected data for all reporting public libraries in cities with
population 200,000 persons or more.[12] The study
also reported juvenile circulation for some years. Data reported to
the American Library Association (ALA) in 1914 indicated that juvenile
circulation per juvenile borrower was about 50% greater than adult circulation
per adult borrower. This ratio and the juvenile circulation share series
imply estimates for adult circulation per adult library user.[13]
These estimates indicate that adult circulation per adult user was 13 in 1908,
rose to 20 in 1930-33, and then fell to 14 in 1946 (see Table 1).

Table 1

Reported Public
Library Circulation in U.S. Cities with Population 200,000 Persons
or More

The share of juvenile circulation is correlated with the
share of juveniles in the population. In 1939, juveniles (persons ages 14
and under) were 25% of the population and juvenile circulation was 33% of total
circulation. By 1957 these figures had risen to 30% and 51%,
respectively. By 1980, with the passing of the post-World War II baby
boom, juveniles had fallen to 22% of the population, and juvenile circulation
had fallen to 31% of total circulation. Circulation per person
served varies from 3.2 to 5.8 between 1939 and 1983 (see Table 2). A
significant share of that variation is driven by the changes in the percentage
of juvenile borrowers and juvenile’s higher borrowing per juvenile library
user.

Colorado historical library circulation data show the importance
of accounting for changes in the share of registered borrowers. From 1920
to 2000, Colorado public library circulation per capita has risen by more than
a factor of three (see Table 3). However, in 1941, 22% of the population
was registered borrowers, while in 2000 the corresponding figure was 66%.[15] Those figures imply that
circulation per registered borrower (user) has dropped from 16 in 1941 to 14 in
2000.

Table 3

Circulation from Colorado Public Libraries

Year

Circulation Per

State Population

1920

2.33

1925

2.51

1930

3.24

1935

3.76

1941

3.62

1946

2.74

1951

3.24

1955

3.37

1960

4.58

1965

5.62

1970

5.41

1975

5.00

1980

4.89

1985

5.00

1990

6.45

1995

8.13

2000

9.09

Source: Colorado Library Research Service (2003).

White’s study of library use indicates that circulation per
registered library user changed little from 1890 to 1970. This study
reports “library registrations as percent of total population” and “book
circulation per capita” for varying collections of cities in 1890, 1900, 1910,
1920, and 1970.[16] The ratio of these figures
gives book circulation per registered user. The median book circulation
per registered user is within 14 to 18 books borrowed per year per user from
1890 to 1970 (see Table 4).[17]

Table 4

Median Circulation Per
User

Across Sets of U.S. Cities

Year

Number of Cities

Circulation

per User

1890

17

14.6

1900

25

14.9

1910

25

14.1

1920

22

17.8

1970

28

15.7

Source: Calculated from White (1983).

The studies discussed here, which seem to have attracted
little attention, suggest the value of additional analysis of library
circulation per library user. These studies indicate that scaled
circulation figures are relatively constant. That’s an interesting
finding. It becomes even more interesting to the extent that it holds
over longer time periods with greater social, economic, and technological
change.

II. Book Circulation Per User for U.S. Public
Libraries from 1856 to 2004

The graph below and Table 5 provide estimates book
circulation per user from 1856 to 2004. These figures re-enforce previous
findings with more data and extend them over more years. Compared to
strong secular trends since the mid-nineteenth century in years of education
per person, leisure time, scientific and practical knowledge, cost of
communication and transportation, and books published per year, library book
circulation per user has been relatively stable.

From at least the early twentieth century, circulation of
books to juveniles has been a significant share of total library
circulation. In 1913, juvenile circulation accounted for perhaps 45% of
total library book circulation.[18] In 2004,
juvenile circulation amounted to 35% of total circulation. Limited
available twentieth-century data indicates that juvenile circulation per
juvenile user is 1.5 to 1.6 times adult circulation per adult user.
Assuming that juvenile circulation was insignificant in the mid-nineteenth
century, adult circulation per adult user was 25% less in the mid-twentieth
century than in the mid-nineteenth century. Like over-all circulation per
user, adult circulation per adult user shows no strong trend from 1856 to 2004
(see Table 5).

Library size, in a cross-sectional analysis of libraries in
a given year, is positively correlated with circulation per user. Thus a
sample of libraries that under-represents small libraries will have a higher
circulation per user than a more representative sample. For the
reasonably comprehensive twentieth-century library surveys, exclusion of
relatively small libraries is likely to matter little because, in aggregate,
these libraries have only a small share of total circulation and total users.

The figures presented here are based upon various sources
and estimation procedures, as described below. While circulation
statistics commonly appear as part of library statistics, statistics that
include the number of library users are more difficult to find. I have
made much supporting data freely available so that others might be able to
improve these estimates or use the data in other ways.

Table 5

Circulation from U.S. Public Libraries

Year

Circulation

per User

Adult Circulation per Adult User

1856

14

14

1868

19

19

1872

17

17

1908

12

1913

12

10

1923

15

1929

16

1938

15

14

1944

13

11

1950

14

11

1955

14

12

1978

16

14

2004

9

8

Table 6

Statistics on U.S. Public Libraries

Year

Libraries Reporting

Volumes

per Library

Libraries Reporting

Circulation per
Library

Libraries Reporting

Users

per Library

1856

1,297

3,254

5,856

416

1868

87

12,817

87

24,464

87

1,286

1872

306

13,068

180

35,339

135

2,119

1908

5,640

16,955

2,835

25,005

2,775

2,083

1913

4,601

12,150

2,924

31,632

3,043

2,605

1923

5,080

23,788

3,199

64,930

3,110

4,423

1929

6,429

24,003

4,380

76,885

4,134

4,750

1938

5,805

18,099

5,515

75,745

4,934

4,895

1944

6,033

20,742

5,731

58,499

5,128

4,483

1950

6,028

23,711

5,783

66,506

5,162

4,913

1955

6,263

27,750

6,166

79,855

5,491

5,571

1978

8,456

52,701

8,456

116,688

8,456

7,092

2004

9,207

87,427

9,207

163,797

9,207

17,239

Note: Some of these figures are estimates.
For sources and estimation procedures, see text below.

Public Library
Statistics for 1856

Source: Rhees (1859).

In the nineteenth century, the term “public library”
included a wide variety of libraries: social libraries, college libraries,
student libraries, academy and professional school libraries, society
libraries, etc. Libraries that required a fee for membership were
considered to be public libraries. These statistics include all these
types of libraries. While the source includes descriptive entries for
each library, the aggregate statistics do not indicate the number of libraries
that reported circulation and users. The number of libraries reporting
users and circulation appears to be significantly smaller than the number
reporting total volumes. Users are defined in various ways across the
individual library reports.[19]

The first appendix provides a table of 88 libraries in Massachusetts,
1868-9. The second appendix provides a table of 75 libraries in the United
States (Massachusetts excepted) and British North America. I extracted
from these tables entries for libraries that included figures for both users
(“persons using the library”) and circulation (“Use of Books yearly;
loans”). Libraries reporting both figures numbered 49 Massachusetts
libraries and 38 non-Massachusetts libraries, including two in Canada, for a
total of 87 libraries (about 112,000 users). I calculated
circulation per user as the sum of loans across the libraries, divided by the
sum of users across the libraries. For the relevant individual-library
data, see Galbi (2007e).

The table in the source includes an entry for “age of most
of users.” A typical range was 15-30 years of age. Among libraries
that listed a range (most libraries), a lower-bound age for “age of most of
users” of 10 years of age or less occurred for 8 Massachusetts libraries and 6
other libraries.

Public Library
Statistics for 1872

Source: United States Bureau of Education (1876) pp. 828-31.

The Bureau of Education’s monumental 1876 report on public
libraries unfortunately did not include figures for number of users for each
library. However, the text of the report included summary statistics on
readers and circulation from a 1872 survey that included some data from 306
responding libraries. For the 135 libraries reporting “average number of
readers in the year,” the average number of readers per library was 2119.
Among 180 lending libraries reporting “average weekly circulation of books,”
the average weekly circulation was 721 volumes. Assuming an average of 49
weeks of library operation per year, I calculate average yearly circulation per
user as (721)(49)/2119=16.7

Public Library
Statistics for 1908-1929

Sources: United States Office of Education (1909), United
States Office of Education (1915), United States Office of Education (1926),
and United States Office of Education (1931).

The U.S. Office of Education issued reports containing
individual library statistics for years about 1884, 1891, 1896, 1900, 1903,
1908, 1913, 1923, and 1929.[20] The reports prior to
1908 did not include the number of library users. Among the reports for
1908 and after, the 1913 report is most detailed. The 1913 report
includes information on books issued for juvenile use, with school libraries
tabulated separately from public and society libraries (the term “public
library” by this time had acquired a narrower meaning than its meaning in the
nineteenth century). In order to be more consistent with the
twentieth-century understanding of public library, I did not include school
libraries in the figures for 1913. The figures for 1908, 1923, and 1929
include school libraries because aggregate statistics that exclude them are not
available.

The 1913 report includes data for public and society
libraries with more than 300 volumes. Data were reported in three groups:
libraries with 301 to 999 volumes, libraries with 1000 to 4999 volumes, and
libraries with 5000 volumes and over. The averages for users and circulation
are weighted across these categories by the number of libraries reporting
volumes in each category, because the later figures are larger and are a likely
to be a better approximation to the total universe of public libraries. I
aggregated the two size categories for libraries in the 1908 survey
similarly.

The 1913 report includes data on juvenile circulation for
public and society libraries containing 5000 or more volumes. Based on
data for surveys in 1938 through 1955 (see below), I estimated that 6% of total
circulation was not distributed among juvenile and adult circulation. I
estimated over-all average juvenile circulation per library using the juvenile
share of distributed circulation in libraries containing 5000 or more
volumes. I calculated average adult circulation as average total
circulation minus average juvenile circulation.

The report includes only information on total
users. I calculated adult circulation per adult borrower based on a
parameter s relating juvenile circulation per juvenile borrower to adult
circulation per adult borrower:

Since total users , equation [1] can be rewritten as

The American Library Association (ALA) Bulletin in 1915
provides detailed statistics on 85 public libraries in 1914. Twenty-five
entries include complete figures for adult and juvenile circulation and adult
and juvenile borrowers.[21] Total adult circulation
per total adult users was 13.5, and total juvenile circulation per total
juvenile user was 20.4, giving s = 1.51. That value
and the value for the other variables on the right side of [2] give the
estimate for adult circulation per adult user.

Table 9

Estimating Adult
Circulation per Adult User in 1913

Juvenile Circulation Share

(for libraries with >=5000 vols)

45%

Undistributed Circulation Share

6%

Juvenile Circulation (ave/lib)

14,149

Adult Circulation (ave/lib)

17,483

s (see equation [1])

1.5

Adult Circulation per Adult User

10.3

The ALA data probably indicate high circulation per user
relative to that statistic for the 1913 survey because the average size of
libraries in the ALA sample is relatively large. Overall circulation per
user for the 25 libraries reporting adult and juvenile circulation from the ALA
sample is 15.7, and average number of volumes per library is 55,412.
Similarly, 167 libraries reporting circulation data through the ALA for 1915
showed circulation per user of 15.1, and had 68,056 volumes per library on average.[22] The much larger 1913 Office of
Education survey showed circulation per user of 12.1, with 12,150 volumes per
library on average.

Public Library
Statistics for 1938, 1944, 1950, 1955

Sources: Dunbar and Foster (1942), Mishoff and Foster
(1947), United States Office of Education (1957).

The Office of Education collected public library statistics
under the year descriptors 1938-39, 1944-45, 1950, and 1955-56. The
1955-56 report noted:

Since public-library fiscal
years vary, reporting library systems were asked to submit data for fiscal
years ending any time between July 1, 1955, and June 30, 1956. A majority of libraries reported either a straight
January-December 1955 calendar year or a July 1, 1955-June 30, 1956, fiscal year, with a very small number reporting fiscal years ending in
all months of the year.[23]

The years 1938, 1944, 1950, and 1955 appear to the single
years that best encompass the reported data. I thus use these years to
designate the figures. But some data comes from plus or minus one year
relative to these indicated years.

While the 1950 and 1955 data include the number of libraries
reporting circulation and users (“registered borrowers”), the 1938 and 1944
data do not include these figures. I calculated the share of libraries
reporting circulation and users in 1950 and 1955, and used these figures to
estimate shares for 1938 and 1944. These shares then imply the number of
libraries reporting, as given in Table 6 and used in calculating average
figures.

Table 10

Incomplete Reporting
Shares in Survey Years

1938

1944

1950

1955

Share Reporting Circulation

95%

95%

95.9%

98.5%

Share Reporting Users

85%

85%

85.6%

87.7%

The 1938 data do not include the number of juvenile
users. I estimated adult circulation per adult user and juvenile
circulation per juvenile user using an estimate for s and equation [2]
and then [1] above. Data for 1944, 1950, and 1955 indicate s of
1.49, 1.63, and 1.59, respectively. A sample of libraries in 1914
showed an s of 1.51 (see above). I set s for 1938 to be
1.5.

Table 11

Estimating Adult and Juvenile Circulation Per User in Survey
Years

1938

1944

1950

1955

Adult Circulation
(ave/lib)

48,868

32,620

35,852

39,527

Adult Users (ave/lib)

2,928

3,220

3,392

Juvenile Circulation
(ave/lib)

26,876

25,879

30,654

40,328

Juvenile Users (ave/lib)

1,555

1,693

2,179

Adult Circulation per
Adult User

13.6

11.1

11.1

11.7

Juvenile Circulation
per Juvenile User

20.5

16.6

18.1

18.5

s

1.5

1.49

1.63

1.59

Public Library
Statistics for 1978

Main source: Eckard (1982).

The date for these data is somewhat confusing. The
report is entitled Statistics of Public Libraries, 1977-1978. The
report states, “The data collected were for fiscal year 1977 and fall 1978.”[24] In current U.S. usage, fiscal
year 1977 would run from October 1, 1976 to September 30, 1977. It seems more likely that the data collected were for fiscal year 1978, running
from Oct. 1977 to Sept. 1978, with fall 1978 data added. Hence I refer to
the survey date as 1978.

The figures are estimates for a universe of 8,456 public
libraries in the U.S. calculated from a sample of about 1,500 libraries.
The estimated standard error for total circulation is about half a percent of
total circulation.[25] That error is much smaller
than the probable error in estimating total users and adult circulation shares.[26]

The estimate of average registered users comes from other sources.
Other surveys indicate that U.S. public libraries served 199.9 million persons
in 1978.[27] The median figure for library
registrations as a percent of total population for 28 cities in 1970 was 27%.[28] Gallup surveys of adults in 1975 and
in 1978 found that 40% and 51%, respectively, reported using a library at least
once in the previous year. Because persons use libraries for study,
in-library reading, and reference works, persons who borrow books from a
library are a subset of persons who use a library. I roughly
estimate the share of persons who borrow books from libraries (users as defined
here) to be 30% of the population served. That figure, with the figure
for population served and 8,456 total libraries, implies an average of 7,092
users per library.

Separating adult and juvenile circulation also depends on
other sources and estimates. Goldhor (1985), Table 2, gives juvenile circulation
as 32% of total circulation in 1978. Based on the library
statistics for 1950 and 1955, I estimate s to be 1.6 in 1978.
Adult circulation per adult user is then calculated from equation [2] above.

Public Library
Statistics for 2004

Main source: Chute, Kroe et al. (2006).

Based on state-level library statistics about 2004, 56% of
the population that libraries serve were registered library users.[29] Unduplicated population served
and the total number of libraries then imply average (registered) users per
library.

Chute, Kroe et al. (2006) includes juvenile circulation, but
not juvenile users. As I did for the 1978 statistics, I take s=1.6 to
estimate adult circulation per adult user via equation [2].

Based on the data summarized in Galbi (2007d), I estimate
audiovisuals to make up 25% of total circulation. Hence book circulation
is estimated to be 75% of total circulation.

III. Speculations Upon the Stability of Borrowing
Behavior

Borrowing books from public libraries is well-connected to a
variety of institutions and values. Much of the pleasure from reading may
be derived from discussing a book with friends who have also read the
book. The desire to discuss books among friends may constrain the rate at
which individuals will read books. At the same time, persons may value
going to the library as an activity in itself. Borrowing library items
may be in part a by-product of interest in those visits. On the supply
side, libraries can counterbalance changing demand for books by shifting the
distribution of book collections between popular and less popular works, by
changing investments in promoting book borrowing, and by shifting collections
from books to audiovisuals.

Media use that is connected to wider scope of behaviors and
interests is likely to change more slowly. The shifts in music from vinyl
records, to CDs, and then to digital downloads were format changes that
required relatively small changes in behavior. Persons who read the
same newspaper every morning while using the bathroom, or who watch a half-hour
television news program every evening before dinner, have their media use
connected to relatively stable patterns of life. Generational changes in
patterns of life, rather than changes in relative prices, quality, or features,
are more important for such media use.[30] Established
institutions, meaning both routine patterns of personal activity and
indefinitely chartered organizations, can give media use considerable stability
despite major changes in activity incentives and technological possibilities.

References

Chute, Adrienne,
Elaine P. Kroe, et al. (2006). Public Libraries in the United States:
Fiscal Year 2004, E.D.Tab. National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC, Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006349.pdf.

Molyneux, Robert
E. (1994). More Hortatory than Factual: Fremont Rider's Exponential Growth
Hypothesis and the Context of Exponentialism. For the good of the order:
essays in honor of Edward G. Holley Delmus E. Williams, ed. Greenwich,
Conn. , JAI Press:85-117.

[1]
The opinions and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the
author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal
Communications Commission, its Commissioners, or any staff other than the
author.

[2] The price of a hardcover book about 1850 was roughly a dollar.
Zboray (1988). The average price for personal (consumer/end-user)
purchases in 2001 was $9.54. Greco (2005) Table 8.5, based on 2001
consumer Research Study of Book Purchasing. Relative to the
unskilled wage, the price of a hardcover book in 1850 was 1.8 times higher than
the price in 2001. For the unskilled wage deflator, see Williamson
(2006).

[4] In 1853, 420 original American books were published. See
Zboray (1988), quoting speech of George Putnam. In 2004, 181,199 U.S.
book titles were published. See Bowker Annual, 2004.

[5] Travel costs significantly affect library use. In 2002, 51.6% of
households less than 1 mile from a library used the library in the preceding
year. For households 6-10 miles away, the figure was 40.9%. See
National Center for Education Statistics (2007) Table 2. White (1983)
observes that residential proximity has increased library use since at least
the mid-twentieth century. The effect of lower travel cost
depends on the residential distribution of library users. If most
library users lived close to libraries in the mid-nineteenth century, or the
average distance increased since the mid-nineteenth century, the over-all
effect of travel costs could have lowered library use.

[6] Williams (1991). Professor Williams is compiling an annotated bibliography
of these studies. He plans to make the bibliography, along with digitized
copies of key statistical compilations, available on the web. I am
grateful to Professor Williams for sharing with me a preliminary version of his
bibliography.

[8] All statistics have weaknesses and limitations. With respect to
library statistics, weaknesses in the statistics tend to be emphasized more
than possible insights from sound analysis. Some discussions of library
statistics are tendentious and intellectually weak. For documentation of
weak analysis of academic library statistics, and important, better analysis of
them, see Molyneux (1994).

[9] Circulation per user is conceptually distinct in the sense that
circulation per user could reasonably be constant despite changes in these
other variables. But circulation per user is not necessarily
independent from changes in these other variables. If the increase in the
aggregate share of library users were primarily from an increase in the share
of users among a population with heterogeneous use-relevant characteristics,
rather than from increased coverage of sub-populations with similar
distributions of use-relevant characteristics, circulation per user would vary
with the share of users. Similarly, if library size is strongly
correlated with library quality, and library quality significantly affects
users’ borrowing behavior, then circulation per user depends on library size.

[10] Measures of library use other than circulation per user exist. For
reviews of library statistics and the measurement of library services, see
Thompson (1951) and Krikelas (1966).